Colonial House
|
List Price: Our Price: $23.99 You Save: $25.99 (52%) Availability: Usually ships in 24 hours Buy Used: from $23.00 (click here) Category: DVD See more DVD releases |
|---|
Buy this DVD movie at online store in your country
Canada
Canada
Movie Reviews of Colonial House
Movie Review: Not Taking It So Seriously
Summary: 4 Stars
I'd like to point out that, while some reviewers here have recurrently referred to Danny Tisdale, the African-American man on the show, as a "slave", he actually was not. He was given the role of a freeman, the same role that was given to most of the men who were not servants. Just FYI.
Also, I see little mention of the mayor Jeff Wyers. He seemed fixated on the idea that everyone came to America in search of "religious freedom" (a notion debunked by facts given in one of many informative voiceovers), yet seemed to find no contradiction with his job of forcing colonists into Christianity. This was certainly the way of those times, and I believe he meant no real harm, but his inability to see the hypocrisy of this even months after filming ended was disheartening.
That said, both sides of the extreme were aggrivating in their own ways. If you watch this without a strong prejudice toward either the left or right, the faults of both sides in the series are obvious and oddly entertaining.
Colonial House was made during the heated politics surrounding the Iraq invasion in 2003, and was set-up to create a lot of political drama that would keep viewers tuning in. The producers knew exactly what they were doing when they appointed a Texas minister as mayor of the colony and then added in a free-thinking family of non-believers, not to mention some beer-loving Brits. There are unpleasant aspects here on both the right and the left, but no truly bad people. This is how PBS keeps you watching, just like everyone who gave it a poor review yet seemed to have had no trouble watching all 8 hrs.
Personally, the only settler who didn't get on my nerves at some point during the series was Don Wood. He also provided one of the funniest moments when, on the job cutting logs, he pointed to the scarlet letter P for "profanity" that he was made to wear by the governor and declared that it stood for his "professionalism". If you've already seen the series, you might find his website at www.donwoodonline.com worth a look (there is some archived behind-the-scenes info and details about the show here).
I was disappointed that PBS went the way of Survivor, etc and created a more combative situation than any previous House series, but it's still far better than if they had gotten together a group of all hardcore Christians who like to rough-it and follow orders. Point a camera at that group in this 1600s setting and you'll get 5 minutes of insomnia-relieving TV.
The inescapable truth is that this was an experiment to see how various kinds of modern people handle living in such a vastly different world, not a contest to see who can become a model 1600s settler. These are 21st century people and even the dumbest of participants was smarter, wiser and much more savvy of their rights than any real 1600s colonist. Thank God!
Up next from PBS: Texas Ranch House (I'm guessing we'll see taxidermist hunters and animal-rights vegetarians).
Movie Review: Understanding History By Seeing How We Have Changed
Summary: 4 Stars
I will acknowledge, as so many reviewers have, that "Colonial House" has its flaws - it turns out not to be a perfectly accurate portrayal of 1630. But that is what I found so fascinating. Because of the 21st century values that forced their way in, this series demonstrates so strongly how things have changed, for better and for worse, since 1630. It also shows deeper than any history text how difficult life must have been for these colonists, and how miraculous it is that the values we hold dear today grew out of such a struggle. These 21st century colonists struggle with more with the mental and spiritual chanllenges than they do with the physical ones - the issue of religion plays front and center in almost every episode. I am a pastor, and I appreciated the portrayal of both sides of that struggle. Although some of the people who skipped Sabbath and rebelled against the colony's laws were not being true to the rules of the project, their rebellion is only possible because of the fortitude of the very colonists whose laws they are ignoring. I found this series the best of the PBS House series for that reason - the struggle between our century and the past seemed very real. And educational. Because of that struggle playing out in every moment, this series offers more than dressing up and role playing the past - it reveals the very essence of what makes this country great, and the risk of freedom at its essence. As Jeff Wyers says at one point: "These people are ungovernable" -- and so we Americans so often are. That struggle to govern in a nation based on individual liberty is at the heart of who we are, and it is on display quite poignantly in this series.Movie Review: Earlier reviewer is right
Summary: 4 Stars
Why did so many people sign up for this project only to violate it at every opportunity? People are supposed to live under 1628 rules, not ignore the laws at every opportunity. Did they think they were signing up for a day spa? At least the British made series (1900, Manor, 1940) kept the people mostly indoors where it was easier to contain their wanderlust. The PBS versions (Colonial, Frontier) had people mostly outdoors where they are more apt to roam. 3 Cheers for the Governor and his family!Movie Review: Getting a pipe high...wha?
Summary: 3 Stars
I got Colonial House after watching Frontier House and posting a review of the DVD set on Amazon. I wanted to see the rest of the House series and bought up both Colonial House and Texas Ranch House. Colonial House seems to have many people, as you can see from the reviews, who hate it. But there are some good points and some bad points. First, let us talk about the set up.
17 people are sent, after some training, to live on a 1000 acres of wild country in Maine. They have to go by boat, they don't know what parts they will play before they get there - governor, freeman, servant - and, luckily for them, most of the town has already been built, the land cleared, and even the animals already transported to the spot. They just have to unload the boat that held their supplies and belongings. So they didn't have to spend two months building the houses. In the end they had four months to prepare to be judged - would they survive or be forced to return to England? Could they survive 1628? Or is it 1682? The DVD set box says 1682 but everybody else says 1628. Mistake or warning of things to come? Dun-dun-DUN!
The Good: They do seem to be able to adapt to the methods, equipment and ways of 17th Century colonists. They plant and grow corn, they built a new house when 8 more people are sent to help the colony, they collect material and foods and use the resources available to them. Some of the people, like Jeff Wyers, his daughter Bethany Wyers, Julia Friese and Don Wood all show a lot of backbone. They show inner strength to do what is right, a willingness to work hard and, sometimes, a sense of humor that is refreshing. They even, sometimes, try to think like a person of the 17th Century. The Wyers family kept to the rules EVEN after all the real life problems they had.
I also liked Jack Lecza, Cape Merchant, who was sent to help them prepare for the winter and the final judgment. He knew his history but he also knew about the resources, how to use them, and how to work with people.
The fact that they are so FAR from modern society is a plus - but did not stop one person from taking a break - see The Bad.
The Bad: Sometimes the Americans forgot about the fact that some of the people in the project were English. So when they talked about our nation this and Americans that I wondered if they remembered that they were 17th Century English colonists. I felt sorry for the English, frankly.
While many people adjusted to no bathrooms, no modern devices, no forks, yet few seemed to adjust to the 17th mindset. They could not stay within the 17th Century. Many kept pulling 21th Century values and ideas into the project and it made for some moments where you wanted to shake them and ask, why are you here? If you didn't want to do this, why did you come? Many people started to drink too much, they played baseball, they can be seen just laying about. Skinny-dipping? Infighting? Tons of meeting and why did they come all the way to the New World without corn seeds?
One Freeman went walk about - in fact he went to a nearby town, went to a bar and got free food and drink. Not only was he breaking the rules but he even promised that while away from the village he was NOT going to leave the 1000 acres. Which he did anyway.
Another Freeman just left after wondering if he was helping bring about slavery. Maybe he adapted to the 17th Century mindset too easily?
Also, with over 20 people in the project near the end I wanted more input from the other members of the village. But we barely see anybody outside the three main families. That sucks. I think they wanted to focus on two types of people - the ones who were major players and the trouble makers. Oh, the drama!
The Ugly: First one up to bat is, of course, Michelle Rossi-Voorhees. Funny enough the rest of her family did pretty good and, I think, outside of her everybody else in her family, and in the colony, came away from the project having learned something. She did not. She got drunk. She got high off the pipe. She complained, shouted at people, refused to go to church. And the thing that really made me feel sad for her was her stating that she felt sorry for Bethany because the girl BELIVED in God. I think I respected Bethany Wyers the most and if she could find comfort and strength in God that is no business of Michelle's. The drunk, pipe smoking, skinny-dipping witch.
Most of the time I found the Heinz family interesting. One day they said one thing and the next they switched over to say something else. Carolyn complained about the rules and how things were run at first. But all that changed when her husband was put in power and then she complained about how nobody was following the rules. And they treated every camera as if it was their own private camera.
The project, in the end was interesting, but also seemed to get twisted into knots. Issues of church, slavery, work, food got mixed in with the rights of women, the rights of servants, debates of freedom, and the need for some private time. In other words 17th Century issues got muddled by 21st Century whining.
Final note - it is not as bad as some reviews seem to say - I think many people got emotional if not outright mad at a few of the people in the project and that carries over into the reviews. It is good but I don't think it was as interesting as Frontier House. I think if properly done it could have been MUCH better then Frontier House. The DVD set also came with extras in the form of a making of, auditions and more diaries.
Movie Review: It was supposed to be a PURITAN colony...not Jerry Springer-
Summary: 3 Stars
The premise of "Colonial House" was supposed to be a 1600s working Puritan colony. A Puritan of 16th and 17th century England was a Protestant (usually Calvinist) a advocate of "purity" of worship, doctrine, and personal and group morality. The Puritan's stressed the importance of obtaining salvation through the development of an individual relationship with God (through the person of Jesus Christ) over attempting to obtain salvation through the sacraments and ceremonies of the church alone. Obviously, the observance of the Sabbath, religion and faith would've been an important part of a typical Puritan colony.
A Puritan colony would've typically been comprised of people of similar faith, values and morals, all trying for a similar goal. The people PBS picked were anything but similar and they had no intention of even trying.
It was interesting to see in the "Making Of" extra, that one of the producers said they had spent an extremely long time trying to find people who TRULY wanted to live the lives that THE PURITAN's lived in the 1600's. I can't imagine that they searched that hard. Many of the participants come across as extremely disagreeable & very selfish. Many of them selectively choose in which portions of early settler life they would like to participate and with which portions they can't be bothered. This was ludacris, because, they all knew before hand what was expected of them. I found myself thinking that it's a good thing our nation's survival didn't depend on them.
The governor of the settlement (one of the only serious participants) really had no power to enforce the rules & as a result most of the participants tended to blatantly ignore the spirit of the experience. For example, one of the most difficult of the female participants wouldn't come to the Sunday Sabbath services (this was REQUIRED in a Puritan colony). It was an essential and mandatory part of Puritan settler life. She choose not to come because she doesn't believe in God, even tho, the Sabbath services held were made very non-comformist & very non-1600 Puritan to placate her. Before long 75% of the colonists are skipping the mandatory Sabbath. Then later, there was also a "Jerry Springer-type" moment of confession on one Sabbath day in a room full of young children, which in the 1600s a Puritan would've been burned for or at least kicked out of the colony. Before long no one was following even the smallest of the experiment's requirements.
If the participants were more genuine and earnest about trying to live like the early Puritan settlers instead of constantly taking the viewer out of the experience with silly arguments & their spoiled brat behavior, this program would've been a lot better.
If it hadn't been for the informative voice overs explaining interesting facts about early colonial life I wouldn't have continued after the 2nd episode. I will give it 3 stars for the voice overs and for the participants who did follow the spirit of the experiment.